KASLIWAL, J.—This civil first appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by learned District Judge, Pali dated September 7, 1970 decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for Rs. 65.950/-. Aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment and decree, the defendant has filed the present appeal. 2. Pali Central Co-operative Bank Limited, Pali (hereinafter referred to as the Bank), filed a suit against the Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation Head Office, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) on April 3, 1964. The plaintiffs case as alleged in the plaint is that the plaintiff Bank is a corporate body registered under the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1953. The Government of Rajasthan established a Warehouse Corporation in the State of Rajasthan having its head office at Jaipur. This Corporation established a number of Ware-house at different places in the State of Rajasthan and one was established at Pali. The plaintiff bank used to issue loans to the various Cooperative Societies. The Pali Kriya Vikrya Sahkari Samiti Limited, Pali (hereinafter referred to as the Samiti) was a registered co-operative society and also a member of the plaintiff Bank. The Samiti used to take cash credit loans from time to time from the plaintiff bank. The Samiti used to put its grain in the ware-house of the Corporation at Pali and obtain receipts and further obtain cash credit loan from the plaintiff bank by pledging such receipts. The Samiti used to make necessary endorsement on the receipts in favour of the plaintiff bank and the plaintiff bank used to inform the warehouse at Pali and thereafter the plaintiff bank had lien over such goods and the delivery of such goods could only be given by the defendant to the plaintiff or to any other person as directed by the plaintiff. The Samiti deposited the goods mentioned in para 5 of the plaint in the godown of the warehouse Pali through 9 receipts from January 13, 1962 to October 3, 1962. The entire goods so deposited consisted of 670 maunds of Till and 890 quintals of Wheat. The Samiti pledged the above goods with the plaintiff bank and gave 9 receipts after making necessary endorsement to the plaintiff bank. The entire goods so deposited consisted of 670 maunds of Till and 890 quintals of Wheat. The Samiti pledged the above goods with the plaintiff bank and gave 9 receipts after making necessary endorsement to the plaintiff bank. The plaintiff bank thereafter informed the defendant that the Samiti had pledged the above goods by way of security of the loan obtained by them from the plaintiff bank and the bank had secured a lien on the said goods. On the instructions of the plaintiff bank the defendant delivered 60 bags of Till equal to 120 maunds to the Samiti on October 3, 1962. Rest of the goods i.e. 550 maunds of Till and 890 quintals of Wheat remained with the defendant. The plaintiff then demanded the delivery of the remaining goods from the defendant and also served a registered notice on September 12, 1963 to give the delivery of the entire goods after taking necessary storage charges but the defendant declined to deliver the goods. The defendant also sent a reply informing the plaintiff that "the goods had already been illegally removed by the Manager of the Samiti when the Warehouseman was on leave, the stock could not be got verified by the Warehouseman at Pali. Kindly ask the Kriya Vikriya Sahkari Samiti Limited Pali to clear off the advances made against the warehouse receipts immediately". The defendant through its second letter dated October 18, 1963 further wrote that 2365 bags have been illegally removed from the Warehouse at Pali through the direct connivance of the Warehouseman and the Manager, Marketing Society, who was on deputation from the Cooperative Department. The plaintiff in the above circumstances filed the present suit for the recovery of Rs. 77,180/-, price of the goods. 3. The defendant contested the suit and in the written statement denied its liability to pay the amount. The defendant took the plea that the plaintiff did not come in the definition of depositor within the meaning of section 2 (b) of the Rajasthan Warehousing Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Pali Warehouse was not a licensed warehouse under the Act. Bishan Singh was not a ware house man within the definition of s. 2(g) of the Act. The plaintiff was not lawfully holder of the receipts and as such was not entitled to claim delivery of the goods. The Pali Warehouse was not a licensed warehouse under the Act. Bishan Singh was not a ware house man within the definition of s. 2(g) of the Act. The plaintiff was not lawfully holder of the receipts and as such was not entitled to claim delivery of the goods. The Samiti used to store the goods in the Warehouse Pali and as such Samiti alone was entitled to claim the delivery of the goods. There was no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the defendant. The pledging of the goods by the Samiti with the plaintiff bank against the cash credit loan was denied. It was also pleaded that the plaintiff bank did not inform the defendant about the creation of any lien in their favour. It was also pleaded that the defendant did not commit any negligence and Chajju Ram Manager of the Samiti and Bishan Singh warehouseman in collusion removed the goods from the warehouse for which a report was lodged in the police station and a criminal case was pending against Shri Bishan Singh and Chajju Ram, for the above act committed by Chajju Ram and Bishan Singh, the defendant could not be held responsible. It was also pleaded that under section 151 of the Contract Act if the goods had been stolen without any negligence on the part of the bailee, the defendant in the capacity of a bailee cannot be held liable for the delivery of the goods. The price of the goods as claimed by the plaintiff was also contested. Certain other pleas regarding not impleading Pali Kriya Vikriya Sahkari Samiti as a party, in the absence of whom the suit was not maintainable, were also taken. 4. The plaintiff then submitted a rejoinder to the written statement on April 16, 1964. The price of the goods as claimed by the plaintiff was also contested. Certain other pleas regarding not impleading Pali Kriya Vikriya Sahkari Samiti as a party, in the absence of whom the suit was not maintainable, were also taken. 4. The plaintiff then submitted a rejoinder to the written statement on April 16, 1964. The learned trial court framed the following 21 issues on April 21, 1965 on the basis of the pleading of the parties: 1- vk;k nh ikyh Ø;&foØl lgdkjh lfefr fyfeVsM] eqnbZ cSad dh esEcj gS\ 2- vk;k nh ikyh Ø;&foØ; lgdkjh lfefr bl eqdnesa esa t:jh Qjhd gS vkSj bl lfefr dks Qjhd cuk;s cxSj nkok gktk ugha py ldrk\ csftEes eqnk;ykA 3- vk;k ikyh os;j gkÅflax dksjiksjsku nh jktLFkku os;j gkmflax dksjiksjsku] t;iqj dh czkap gS\ cftEes eqnk;ykA 4- vk;k nh ikyh os;j gkmflax dksjiksjsku Hkh bl eqdnes esa t:jh Qjhd gS\ cftEes eqnk;ykA 5- vk;k nh jktLFkku LVsV os;j gkmflax dksjiksjsku Hkh nQk 43 ¼th½ os;j gkmflax dksjiksjsku ,DV] 1962 ds rgr pkfg,\ cftEes eqnbZA 6- vk;k eqnbZ cSad] nh jktLFkku LVsV os;j gkmflax dksjiksjsku t;iqj ij ekStwnk nkok dj ldrk gS\ cftEes eqnbZA 7- vk;k ikyh Ø;&foØ; lgdkjh lfefr ls eqnbZ ds gd esa 9 jlhnsa ,UMkslZ dh xbZA vkSj D;k bl dkj.k eqnbZ cSad dh gSfl;r fMiksftV dh gS\ cftEes eqnbZA 8- vk;k ukS jlhnksa dks ikyh Ø;&foØ; lgdkjh lfefr dh vksj ls eqnbZ cSad ds uke ij ,UMkslZ dj fn;s tkus ls eqnbZ cSad dh gSfl;r Iysth dh gS\ cftEes eqnbZA 9- vk;k nh ikyh os;j gkmflax dksjiksjsku dks jktLFkku ljdkj ls ykblsUl ysuk ykteh Fkk vkSj ykblsUl u ysus ds dkj.k tks jlhnsa os;j gkml esu ikyh us Ø;&foØ; lgdkjh lfefr ikyh dks nh gS mu jlhnksa ds tfj;s eqnbZ dksbZ ge eky izkIr djus dk ;k nkok gktk djus dk iSnk ugha gksrk\ cftEes eqnk;ykA 10- D;k nh ikyh Ø;&foØ; lfefr us ukS jlhnksa dk eky gLc nkok os;j gkmflax dksjiksjsku ikyh ds ikl LVksjst ds fy;s j[kk\ cftEes eqnbZA 11- vk;k 9 jlhnksa ij ,UMkslZesUV nh ikyh Ø; foØ; lfefr ds nks esEclZ ds nLr[krksa ds tfj;s dkuwuu gksuk pkfg;s vkSj ,slk ugha gS rks bldk nkok gktk ij D;k vlj fxjrk gS\ cftEes eqnk;ykA 12- vk;k nh ikyh os;j gkmflax dksjiksjsku ds xksnkeksa ls eky pksjh pyk x;kA vkSj vxj ,slk gS rks eqnbZ cSad] ukS jlhnksa dk eky xksnkeksa esa j[kk gqvk lkfcr gksus dh lwjr esa Hkh nh jktLFkku os;j gkmflax dksjiksjsku ikyh o nh jktLFkku os;j gkmflax dksjiksjsku] t;iqj ls fdlh jde dks ikus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gS\ cftEes eqnk;ykA 13- vk;k :y 28 jktLFkku os;j gkmflax dksjiksjsku :Yl 1960 ds vuqlkj dksEihVsUV vksFkksjsVh dks gh] eky ds os;j gkmflax ls pys tkus dh lwjr esa eqnbZ cSad dks ekeyk isk djuk pkfg, Fkk vkSj ekStwnk nkok ykus dk mls vf/kdkj ugha gS\ cftEes eqnk;ykA 14- vk;k eqnbZ cSad us vthZnkok ds dkSye ua- 10 esa ftl rjg ls gtkZuk ekaxk gS vkSj tks jde gtkZus dh crkbZ xbZ gS og eqnbZ cSad eqnk;yk ls ikus dk gdnkj gS\ cftEes eqnbZA 15- vk;k ukS jlhnksa tsj cgl ij jlhn LVkEi ugha gksus ls ;s vn[kkys kgknr ugha gks ldrh vkSj bu ij dksbZ xkSj gh fd;k tk ldrk gS\ cftEes eqnk;ykA 16- D;k ukS jlhnsa lnj esa fy[kh gqbZ e;knksa ds xqtjus ij eqnbZ cSad ds lkeku jlhnksa dk nh ikyh os;j gkmflax dksjiksjsku ds xksnkeksa ls ugha gVkus ls eqnk;yk fdlh jde ;k gtkZuk lkeku nsus dk ftEesnkj ugha gSA cftEes eqnk;ykA 17- vk;k Jh NTtwjke] eSustj] nh ikyh Ø; foØ; lgdkjh lfefr ls nh ikyh os;j gkmflax dksjiksjsku ds xksnkeksa ls jlhnksa dk eky gVk fn;k vkSj bl dkj.k Hkh eqnbZ cSad dksbZ jde crjhd gtkZuk eky eqnk;yk ls ikus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gS\ cftEes eqnk;ykA 18- vk;k :y 13 nh jktLFkku os;j gkmflax :Yl] 1960 ds vuqlkj eqnbZ cSad dks uksfVl nkok djus ds iwoZ eqnk;yk dks nsuk t:jh Fkk vkSj D;k ,slk uksfVl ugha nsus ls nkok gktk dkfcy pyus ds ugha gS\ cftEes eqnk;ykA 19- D;k eqnk;yk us vius tokcnkok dk dkWye ua- 10] 15 o 16 esa xQyr] lkftk ¼dksyqtu½ oxSjg ckcr ftØ fd;k gS] mudh otg ls nh jktLFkku os;j gkmflax ikyh ds xksnkeksa ls eky pksjh x;k vkSj bl dkj.k eqnk;yk fdlh jde ;k gtZ dks nsus dk ftEesnkj ugha gS\ cftEes eqnk;ykA 20- vk;k eqnbZ cSad o eqnk;yk ds chp dksbZ izkbZosVh vkWQ dksUVªsLV bl ekeys ekStwnk esa ughas gS\ vkSj D;k bl dkj.k eqnk;yk ij nkok ugha py ldrk\ cftEes eqnk;ykA 21- eqnbZ fdl nknjlh dk eqLrsgd gS\ 5. After recording the evidence of the parties, the trial court decided issue No. 1 in favour of the defendant. Under issue No. 3, the trial court held that the Pali Warehousing Corporation was part and parcel of the Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation and was not a separate entity. Thereafter the learned trial court mentioned the relevant law ro be applied in this case and observed that, "in view of the above quoted law. I have to see how far the parties have been able to discharge burden of issues, which lay on their shoulders." The learned trial court then considered issue No. 4 and decided the same against the defendant. Issue No. 5 was decided against the defendant. The learned trial court then considered issue Nos. 7,8, 10 and 15 simultaneously and decided them in favour of the plaintiff bank. Under issue No. 2. the trial court held that the Samiti was not a necessary party. Issues Nos 6. 9, 11 and 13 were decided against the defendant. The learned trial court again considered issues Nos. 12, 17 and 19 simultaneously and decided all the issues against the defendant. Issue No. 18 was decided in favour of the plaintiff. Under issue No. 20, the learned trial court held that there was a privity of contract between the plaintiff and the defendant. Issue No. 16 was decided against the defendant. Under issue No. 14, the learned trial court assessed the rate of Till at Rs. 39/- per maund and that of Wheat at Rs. 50/- per quintal. In view of the above findings, the trial court decreed the plaintiffs claim for Rs. 65,950/- with proportionate costs. The trial court allowed interest on the aforesaid amount at 4% per annum from the date of decree till its realisation. The rest of the claim of the plaintiff was dismissed with costs. The trial court did not allow any interest pendente lite. 6. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the defendant appellant only challenged the finding of the trial court on issue Nos. 2, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 17, 19 and 20. The finding of the trial court on other issues was not challenged before us. 7. The trial court did not allow any interest pendente lite. 6. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the defendant appellant only challenged the finding of the trial court on issue Nos. 2, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 17, 19 and 20. The finding of the trial court on other issues was not challenged before us. 7. Learned counsel for the defendant-appellant did not argue the appeal challenging the judgment and decree of the trial court issue-wise, but advanced his arguments point-wise and as such we are dealing with those arguments in the same manner. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the goods in question were bailed with the defendant by the Samiti and as such Samiti alone was entitled to claim their delivery and file the suit in case the same were not delivered by the defendant. It was further contended that the goods were not pledged with the bank and even if the 9 receipts issued by the defendant were endorsed in favour of the bank, the receipts could only be treated as security for the loan advanced by the bank, but this did not give any right to the bank to claim price of the goods. It was further contended that the bank should demand the money from the Samiti and on the failure of the Samiti to pay the same, the bank had a right to claim the goods or its price from the defendant. As a corollary of the above submission, it was submitted that Samiti was a necessary party and in the absence of the Samiti, the present suit was not maintainable. Mr. Gupta also submitted that the endorsements in the receipts Ex. 13 to 21 to the following effect : ^^nh ikyh lsUVªy dksjiksjsku cSad fy-,p-vks- ikyh ¼jktLFkku½ ds ekeys ij Hk.Mkj dk leLr [kpkZ fy;k tkdj NksM+ fn;k tk;A** and the seal below it on behalf of Pali Kriya Vikriya Sahkari Samiti Limited Pali were put subsequently in order to give a right to the plaintiff to file the present suit. 13 to 21 to the following effect : ^^nh ikyh lsUVªy dksjiksjsku cSad fy-,p-vks- ikyh ¼jktLFkku½ ds ekeys ij Hk.Mkj dk leLr [kpkZ fy;k tkdj NksM+ fn;k tk;A** and the seal below it on behalf of Pali Kriya Vikriya Sahkari Samiti Limited Pali were put subsequently in order to give a right to the plaintiff to file the present suit. In support of this contention it was pointed out that the above endorsement in the receipts was in different ink and its style and manner in which it has been put on the receipts shows that it was done at one time and such endorsements being made fraudulently, the receipts being forged documents, should not be relied upon and the plaintiff is not entitled to file a suit on the basis of such forged receipts. 8. The defendant has admitted the signatures of Shri Bishan Singh Warehouseman on the receipt Exs. 13 to 21 The receipts contain the endorsement in favour of the Pali Central Co-operative Bank Limited Pali at two places on the back portion. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant, has not disputed one of these endorsements which have mentioned that the goods were pledged in favour of the bank and the same may not be released till the amount of pledge was repaid. Mr. Gupta has however challenged the second endorsement which had been made in favour of the bank to give it an authority to demand the goods. This later authority was admittedly to have been given by the Samiti. The defendant comes nowhere in the picture at the time of the putting of the second endorsement in the receipts. Mr. Gupta could not point out any intrinsic evidence on the record to satisfy us that the second endorsement was a forged one. It would be pertinent to note that the seal on behalf of the Samiti and the signature of Chajju Ram Manager on behalf of the Samiti are put below both the above endorsements in favour of the bank. The signatures of Chajju Ram have not been disputed before us. It would be pertinent to note that the seal on behalf of the Samiti and the signature of Chajju Ram Manager on behalf of the Samiti are put below both the above endorsements in favour of the bank. The signatures of Chajju Ram have not been disputed before us. In these circumstances it is merely a surmise or conjecture on the part of the learned counsel for the defendant to convince us that the lower endorsement in favour of the bank was made subsequently merely because it was in a different ink or all the endorsements were made in a similar manner or style. It is an admitted case of the defendant that the goods were deposited in the warehouse at Pali and Exs. 13 to 21 were issued by Shri Bishan Singh, the warehouseman. It is also proved beyond any manner of doubt that the Samiti had a cash credit loan account with the bank and had taken loan from the bank by pledging the receipts and the goods. The receipts were endorsed by the Samiti in favour of the bank and the receipts Exs. 13 to 21 have been produced by the bank from its own custody. It has been stated by P. W. 1 Jugal Kishore and P.W 4 Bishan Swaroop, Manager of the Bank that the loan was advanced to the Samiti on the security of the goods pledged with the bank and after obtaining the receipts issued by the warehouse in favour of the Samiti. The above statement is also corroborated by P. W. 2 Ramratan Agarwal and P.W. 3 Badri Prasad who were Accountants in the Bank at the relevant time. Thus the entire transaction was done in the normal course of transaction in this kind and nature of the business and it was quite normal and regular for the bank to have obtained endorsement in its favour before advancing loan to the Samiti. That apart, section 2(b) of the Act defines depositor* as the person who tenders his goods to the warehouseman for storing in his warehouse and includes any person who lawfully holds the receipt issued by Warehouseman in respect of goods and derives title thereto by a proper endorsement or transfer thereof to him by the depositor or the depositors lawful transferee. Thus according to the above definition a person becomes a depositor, who lawfully holds the receipt issued by warehouseman and derives title by a proper endorsement or transfer made in his favour by the depositor. There is nothing on the record to show that the Samiti has ever challenged such endorsement being made in favour of the bank. The bank thus becomes a depositor within the meaning of the above definition and under section 16 of the Act the Warehouseman is bound to make the delivery of the goods to the depositor on demand made by him. Ex. 22 dated June 22, 1962 has been placed on record in order to show that the bank had informed the Warehouseman of the Corporation at Pali that the Samiti had assigned to and deposited with the bank as security for advances granted to them vide warehouse receipts Nos. 3339 and 3343 dated June 13. 1962 and June 21, 1962 and the goods of any part thereof shall not at any time be delivered by the warehouse except on the production of the receipts mentioned above. There is an endorsement on the back of the above documents by Bishan Singh dated June 22, 1962 to the following effect: "Your Banks lien has been noted with this remark that it will not be delivered without your delivery order." Similar kinds of letters have been produced relating to other receipts which are Exs. 23 to 28. In the face of such documents by which information was sent to the Warehouseman and he had noted the lien of the bank, it does not lie in the mouth of the defendant to advance the argument that there was no privity of contract or that they were not bound to deliver the goods to the bank. Mr. Gupta in this regard also submitted that there are no letters bearing note as indicated in Exs. 22 to 28, with regard to the goods deposited vide Ex. 20 receipt No. 3350 and Ex. 21 receipt No. 3351. It is. thus, contended that atleast the goods relating to these two receipts Ex 20 and Ex. 21 cannot be demanded by the plaintiff bank. P.W. 1 Shri Jugal Kishore while cross-examined with regard to noting of lien relating to Exs. 20 receipt No. 3350 and Ex. 21 receipt No. 3351. It is. thus, contended that atleast the goods relating to these two receipts Ex 20 and Ex. 21 cannot be demanded by the plaintiff bank. P.W. 1 Shri Jugal Kishore while cross-examined with regard to noting of lien relating to Exs. 20 and 21 stated that letters have been written from the bank to the Warehouseman for noting such liens, but such letters could not be produced as the same were not traceable in the bank. We are prepared to believe this explanation of P.W 1, because there was no reason why letters could not have been written by the bank in relation to Exs. 20 and 21 when such letters have been written in relation to other receipts i.e. Exs. 13 to 19. Be that as it may, as we have already held above that under section 2 (b) of the Act an endorsement could be made by the Samiti in favour of the bank, the noting or not noting of lien by the Warehouseman on the receipts was of no consequence. Even in the absence of such noting of lien, the defendant was bound to deliver the goods to the holder of the receipts and the bank is entitled to file the present suit against the defendant. This also disposes of the objection raised by Mr. Gupta in relation to the non impleading of Samiti which being a necessary party and also the objection that there was no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the defendant. We find no force in the contention of Mr. Gupta that the bank should first make a demand from the Samiti about the loan advanced to them and in the absence of the amount being paid by the Samiti, then alone the plaintiff was entitled to file the suit. In view of the goods being pledged with the bank and the receipts endorsed in favour of the bank, the defendant is bound to deliver the goods to the plaintiff bank and in the absence of such delivery, is bound to pay the price. 9. Mr. Gupta also contended that it was not a case of advancing loan by the bank to the Samiti on the scrutiny of the specific goods. 9. Mr. Gupta also contended that it was not a case of advancing loan by the bank to the Samiti on the scrutiny of the specific goods. It was a cash credit account under which the loan was advanced by the bank and the goods were lying in security. It is thus contended that no specific goods were pledged with the bank and there being no lien on specific goods, the plaintiff bank had no authority to claim delivery of the specific goods. We find no substance in the above argument. The Warehouseman in the capacity of a bailee by acknowledging that it held the goods for the depositor was bound to return it to the depo-siter on a demand made by him. The cash in hand is a bailment of the goods by the Samiti with the defendant and receipts Exs. 13 to 21 having been issued by the defendant acknowledging such bailment and the receipts having been endorsed in favour of the plaintiff bank by the Samiti, the bank being holder of the receipts was entitled to file the present suit. It was observed in Official Assignee, Madras vs. Mercantile Bank of India. Ltd. (1). that at the common law a pledge could not be created except by a delivery of possession of the thing pledged, either actual or constructive. It involved a bailment. If the pledgor had the actual goods in his physical possession, he could effect the pledge by actual delivery; in other cases he could give possession by some symbolic act, such as handing over the key of the store in which they were. If however the goods were in the custody of a third person, who held for the bailor so that in law his possession was that of the bailor, the pledge could be effected by a change of possession of the third party, that is by an order to him from the pledgor to hold for the bailee, the change being perfected by the third party attorning to the pledgee, that is acknowledging that he thereupon held for him; there was thus a change of possession and a constructive delivery; the goods in the hands of the third party became by this process in the possession constructively of the pledgee. But where goods were represented by documents the transfer of the documents did not change the possession of the goods, save for one exception, unless the custodier (carrier, warehouseman or such) was notified of the transfer and agreed to hold in future as bailee for the pledgee. 10. Mr Gupta next contended that the defendant being a bailee, could only be hold liable if there was negligence on his part. The duty of a bailee was to act as a prudent man. Our attention was drawn to section 151 of the Indian Contract Act which lays down that in all cases of bailment, the bailee is bound to take as much care of the goods bailed to him as a man of ordinary prudence would under similar circumstances take of his own goods of the same bulk, quality and value as the goods bailed. It is, thus contended that even if for arguments sake it may be admitted that the goods were stolen from the warehouse, there was no negligence of the Warehouseman Shri Bishan Singh as the goods were stolen by Chajju Ram in connivance with Bishan Singh. It is further contended that where the servant himself is a thief, there is no liability of the master, if no negligence is attributed to the servant in the discharge of his official duty. Reliance is placed on Cheshire vs. Bailey (2) wherein : "The plaintiff, a wholesale silversmith, hired from the defendant, a jobmaster, a brougham, horse, and coachman for the purpose of driving the plaintiffs traveller about London with samples of the plaintiffs wares to be shown to customers. It was known to the defendant that, in the course of business, occasions would arise when the traveller would have to leave the brougham with samples in it in charge of the coachman. On one of such occasions, the coachman, in pursuance of an arrangement made with confederates, drove the brougham to a place where a great portion of the samples in it was stolen by them. In an action brought by the plaintiff against the defendant to recover the value of the goods so stolen." 11. On the above facts it was held : "that the defendant was not responsible in respect of the criminal act of his servant, the same not having been done within the scope of his employment." 12. In an action brought by the plaintiff against the defendant to recover the value of the goods so stolen." 11. On the above facts it was held : "that the defendant was not responsible in respect of the criminal act of his servant, the same not having been done within the scope of his employment." 12. We are constrained to observe that the statement of law given in Cheshire vs. Bailey (supra), is not a correct statement of law. 13. Clerk & Lindsell on Torts, fourteenth edition at page 284 while dealing with the subject servans theft, observed as under : "It was formerly thought that a master could not be liable for a theft committed by his servant on the ground that the act of stealing must necessarily be an act outside the course of his employment. 28 In Morris vs. C.W. Martin & Sons Ltd. 29 however, the Court of Appeal overruled earlier authority 30 and held a bailee liable to his bailor for theft by his servant of the goods bailed. In that case the plaintiffs ful coat had been delivered with her permission to the defendants for it to be cleaned and the defendants servant, to whom they had handed it for the necessary work to be done, stole it. The defendants were held liable, chiefly on the basis that their own duty as bailees for reward had been broken by reason of the servants theft: they could not get rid of their responsibility by passing it on the another, and, having entrusted their duty to their servant, must answer for the way in which he conducted himself therein. 31 It is suggested, however, that in view of the fact that the coat was stolen by the very servant to whom it had been entrusted by the defendants and that the result would have been different if the coat had been stolen by a servant to whom the coat had not been entrusted, 32 the case could have been decided on the shorter and simpler ground that the servant had converted the coat in the course of his employment. Having been entrusted with the coat by his master, his conversion of it amounted to the dishonest performance of that which he had been employed to do honestly, namely, to keep it safe for its owner. Having been entrusted with the coat by his master, his conversion of it amounted to the dishonest performance of that which he had been employed to do honestly, namely, to keep it safe for its owner. It is submitted, therefore, that in case of theft by a servant the first question to ask is whether or not the stolen goods had been put in the custody of the servant by his master. If they had, then the theft will have been committed by the servant in the course of his employment and, unless there is something in the contract of bailment to the contrary, 33 the master will be vicariously liable. 34 If they were not, then the master will not be vicariously liable for the theft, though the possibility that he may be liable on some other ground, including a breach of his own duty as bailee, remains open. 28. Cheshire vs. Bailey (1905) 1 K.S. 237; Hintz vs. Silverton (1920) 36 T.L.R. 399, Cf. Abraham vs. Bullock (1902) 86 L.T. 796. 29. (1966) 1 C.B. 716; Mendelssohn vs. Normand Ltd. (1970) 1 C.B. 177. 30. Especially Cheshire vs. Bailey (supra) 31. (1966) 1 C.B. 716, per Lord Denning M.R. 32. (1966) 1 C.B. 716, 737, per Diplock L.J. 33. John Carter (Fine Warsteds) Ltd. vs. Hanson, Haulage (Leeds) Ltd. (1965) 2 C.B. 495. 34. Giblin vs. MG Mullon (1868) L.R. 2 P.C. 317." 14. In our view the defendants were Warehousemen and were charging for the custody of the goods deposited in their warehouse. Bishan Singh was admittedly the warehouseman and was in the employment of the defendant. It has also come on record that Chajjuram was employed as a warehouseman under the orders of the Managing Director of the Corporation when Bishan Singh had gone on leave. Thus if the goods were stolen from the warehouse of the defendant by their own servant, the defendant Corporation cannot escape the liability by taking the plea that there was no negligence on their part or they acted as a prudent man in the capacity of a bailee. Thus if the goods were stolen from the warehouse of the defendant by their own servant, the defendant Corporation cannot escape the liability by taking the plea that there was no negligence on their part or they acted as a prudent man in the capacity of a bailee. Where the goods are entrusted to a servant of a warehouse and if such goods are stolen by the Warehouseman in whose custody the goods are entrusted, the master would certainly be liable vicariously for such acts of its servant and the question of taking precou-tions or no negligence on the part of the master will be of no relevance. 15. In the VI volume of American Jurisprudence ( Revised Edition ), dealing with the bailments in paragraph 224, the law in this regard has been stated as follows: "Any other rule, it is said, would have a tendency to tempt a bailee to lessen his personal liability for damages by delegating to irresponsible servants the care of the property. The rule is also supported by some authorities which take the view that where the servant is entrusted with the custody of the thing bailed by the bailee, the scope of his employment includes fulfilment of the duties owned to the bailor by the bailee under the contract of bailment, and for conduct violative thereof, his master is liable under the rule of respondent superior." In another part of the book (paragraph 265, page 371) the learned authors say: "Furthermore, if the bailee, through such an agent or servant, undertakes to perform some absolute duty which, he assumed by the bailment, he is generally held liable upon his contractual obligation for any loss or injury growing out of a violation of such duty, notwithstanding it is brought about by some unauthorised act of the employee, nor otherwise within the scope of the employment, and though the bailee himself may have exercised due diligence in the selection of his agent and in other respects." 16. In Ponnamma vs. Ramanathan (3), it was observed as under:— "The position of the proprietor of the workshop who invites the public to take vehicles there for repairs is nothing but that of a bailee. It is undoubtedly the duty of the proprietor of the workshop to carry on the necessary repairs and return the vehicle to the owner in proper condition. It is undoubtedly the duty of the proprietor of the workshop to carry on the necessary repairs and return the vehicle to the owner in proper condition. If the proprietor of the workshop entrusts that duty to his employee, he is undoubtedly answerable for the way in which the employee dealt with the vehicle under repair. It is immaterial whether the servant was negligent or he acted fraudulently or dishonestly. The proprietor of the workshop is answerable for any damage done to the vehicle by the employee." 17. No other argument was advanced before us Thus we find no error in the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge and we uphold the same. 18. In the result, this appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.